Forums

Can Bigs Become More Effective Please? Topic

This guy is a monster, and should be averaging a lot more points (especially in a weak conference). Look at him: http://whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=2336503

99 ATH and 98 LP (I know the Free Throw Shooting is bad, but still) and he's only averaging 15 PPG, and with only decent effiency. I mean how good does a big have to be to be really effective. This guy is about as good as it gets (besides the poor free throw shooting).
Sorry for the rant, it's just not realistic, and it should be changed. (I sent a ticket).

I personally think that to be a truly elite post scorer (20+ PPG), you also need a sizable speed advantage over your opponent (and 33 speed isn't probably high enough...probably need somewhere around 60+) in addition to the required disto (that or you'll need adequate FT skill to be a more efficient scorer).

Posted by buddhagamer on 4/2/2013 11:11:00 PM (view original):I personally think that to be a truly elite post scorer (20+ PPG), you also need a sizable speed advantage over your opponent (and 33 speed isn't probably high enough...probably need somewhere around 60+) in addition to the required disto (that or you'll need adequate FT skill to be a more efficient scorer).

Wow, I didn't know speed was so important for bigs. But I guess my point is this guy has about the equivalent skill set one would think Shaq or Dwight Howard (maybe if he was a bit better at blocking shots) would have. And yet, he's not like a prolific scorer (he's only decently efficient) like Shaq was in college (and in the pros), or Dwight would've been if he went to college. I just don't think he, or any other big for that matter, is as efficient as they should and need to be. Implementing a change where bigs are more efficient scorers would add realism, and would just make the game better. It's not really fair that guards are the only guys who can be efficient unless the big has a freakishly good skill set, which is maybe only one or two guys in a class, and in real life their are a TON of efficient bigs.

Even the best bigs in college ball now aren't that much more dominant than your guy. Just thinking of two of the more prominent guys this season Cody Zeller and Mason Plumlee. Zeller scored 16.8 PGG on 57.7% and Plumlee was 17.2 on 58.9%. Thats not that big of a difference from your guy and its not impossible to have a guy get close to those numbers in HD.

Posted by buddhagamer on 4/2/2013 11:11:00 PM (view original):I personally think that to be a truly elite post scorer (20+ PPG), you also need a sizable speed advantage over your opponent (and 33 speed isn't probably high enough...probably need somewhere around 60+) in addition to the required disto (that or you'll need adequate FT skill to be a more efficient scorer).

Wow, I didn't know speed was so important for bigs. But I guess my point is this guy has about the equivalent skill set one would think Shaq or Dwight Howard (maybe if he was a bit better at blocking shots) would have. And yet, he's not like a prolific scorer (he's only decently efficient) like Shaq was in college (and in the pros), or Dwight would've been if he went to college. I just don't think he, or any other big for that matter, is as efficient as they should and need to be. Implementing a change where bigs are more efficient scorers would add realism, and would just make the game better. It's not really fair that guards are the only guys who can be efficient unless the big has a freakishly good skill set, which is maybe only one or two guys in a class, and in real life their are a TON of efficient bigs.

So I guess this means you're not willing to share your distro numbers. That's cool, I respect the choice.

For a guy who gets 28 minutes a game and is one of three main scorers on the team, absent other information, 15 PPG seems totally reasonable to me.

Posted by blackdog3377 on 4/3/2013 1:14:00 AM (view original):Even the best bigs in college ball now aren't that much more dominant than your guy. Just thinking of two of the more prominent guys this season Cody Zeller and Mason Plumlee. Zeller scored 16.8 PGG on 57.7% and Plumlee was 17.2 on 58.9%. Thats not that big of a difference from your guy and its not impossible to have a guy get close to those numbers in HD.

I'm arguing that a guy SHOULD be able to put up those kind of numbers in HD consistently (all I ask is for one or two guys a class). I've only seen that kind of efficiency maybe once. It's impossible for a big to put up Plumlee #'s, and it shouldn't be.

Posted by blackdog3377 on 4/3/2013 1:14:00 AM (view original):Even the best bigs in college ball now aren't that much more dominant than your guy. Just thinking of two of the more prominent guys this season Cody Zeller and Mason Plumlee. Zeller scored 16.8 PGG on 57.7% and Plumlee was 17.2 on 58.9%. Thats not that big of a difference from your guy and its not impossible to have a guy get close to those numbers in HD.

I'm arguing that a guy SHOULD be able to put up those kind of numbers in HD consistently (all I ask is for one or two guys a class). I've only seen that kind of efficiency maybe once. It's impossible for a big to put up Plumlee #'s, and it shouldn't be.

Ive had big put up numbers like that before so it definitely is possible. You just have to give them a lot of distro. The best big I ever had scored 21 a game on 57% his senior year.

Your premise that guys like this don't exist is just not true. I had this guy graduate last year. Against a top 40 SOS, he scored 25.2 ppg (led the country) on slightly over 50% shooting (I didn't keep his shooting % numbers, but I am pretty sure it was about 51.5%). On this team, there were 3 freshmen starters, so definitely not a great supporting cast, and we went 23-7, won our division in the ACC, and went to the 2nd round of the NT. He was 1st-team all-american. He was dominant for a team starting 3 freshmen, so I'm sure he was getting doubled every single game and still managed to lead a mediocre supporting cast to a 2nd round NT appearance (I was an 8 seed). I'd say he was pretty damn effective.